Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;398344]Boy Dmek, do you ever live in the wrong neck of the woods. How's it feel being the only democrat in Lancaster?[/quote]
right now its feeling pretty darn good, considering how much of a mess this administration has made of our beautiful country

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

he listens to death metal???? must be a serial killer waiting to strike :P

sorry, but its actually much more mainstream now with in flames, dark tranquility, etc selling millions of cds.

I mean, i'm a bit of a loner and fully trained on assault rifles with access too, but my friends (also liking the death metal) and i aren't ever going to go shoot some place up.

i know that's not really what you meant, but it's really not bad music. black metal is the crap about burning curches and killing people and loving satan. it just sounds like noise.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[quote=That Guy;398428]he listens to death metal???? must be a serial killer waiting to strike :P

sorry, but its actually much more mainstream now with in flames, dark tranquility, etc selling millions of cds.

I mean, i'm a bit of a loner and fully trained on assault rifles with access too, but my friends (also liking the death metal) and i aren't ever going to go shoot some place up.

i know that's not really what you meant, but it's really not bad music. black metal is the crap about burning curches and killing people and loving satan. it just sounds like noise.[/quote]


I'm not pigeon holing a group of people based on musical preference, but I'd feel a bit more at ease if his taste in music was willie nelson or some shit. If this guy were driving around listening to MMMMBOP I wouldn't give him a second thought, know what I mean?


and you mention friends... this guy has none. he's got serious issues.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

for those of you who are glock fans, Im seriously considering sending my Model 22 .40 off to [URL="http://www.rockyourglock.com"]these guys[/URL]

they do have redskins stuff...

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[QUOTE=canthetuna;398599]for those of you who are glock fans, Im seriously considering sending my Model 22 .40 off to [URL="http://www.rockyourglock.com"]these guys[/URL]

they do have redskins stuff...[/QUOTE]

That's crazy...never seen that before.

And no, I'm not a Glock fan. Can't stand 'em :)

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

Seriously, folks - it's called Snopes, and, unlike guns, it saves lives:
[URL="http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/homeinvasion.asp"]Urban Legends Reference Pages: Home Invasion Thwarted by 11-Year-Old Girl[/URL]

[quote=Monksdown;398308]Quoting:

[B][B][FONT=Arial][SIZE=4][COLOR=black][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]Preteen vs. illegal alien Home Invaders[/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/B]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=4][COLOR=black][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]Butte[/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=4][COLOR=black][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial], Montana[/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=4][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]November 5, 200[/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=4][COLOR=navy][COLOR=navy]7[/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/B]
[B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26[/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11 year old[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home.[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black] It seems the two crooks never learned two things: they were in [/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][FONT=Arial][COLOR=black][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]Montana[/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]and Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since she was nine.[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black] Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]grabbed his 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun.[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black] Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]first to catch a near point blank blast of buckshot from the 11-year-old's[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals.[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black] When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]before medical help could arrive.[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black] It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. That victim,[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]50-year-old David Burien, was not so lucky. He died from stab wounds to the[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]chest.[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black] Ever wonder why good stuff never makes[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][FONT=Arial][COLOR=black][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial][B]NBC[/B][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black], CBS,[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][FONT=Arial][COLOR=black][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial][B]PBS[/B][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black],[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][FONT=Arial][COLOR=black][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial][B]MSNBC[/B][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black], CNN, or[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]ABC news....[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black] Now that is Gun Control![/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][/quote]

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

Not picking sides here, but for every story like this is a story of some kid who accidently killed a buddy while playing with dad's gun. Or, some kid who took dad's gun to school...

And why was an 11-year old left home alone?


[QUOTE=Monksdown;398308]Quoting:

[B][B][FONT=Arial][SIZE=4][COLOR=black][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]Preteen vs. illegal alien Home Invaders[/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/B]
[B][B][FONT=Arial][SIZE=4][/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/B][FONT=Arial][SIZE=4][COLOR=black][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]Butte[/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=4][COLOR=black][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial], Montana[/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][B][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/B][B][B][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=4][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]November 5, 200[/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=4][COLOR=navy][COLOR=navy]7[/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/B]
[B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26[/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/B][B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11 year old[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home.[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black] It seems the two crooks never learned two things: they were in [/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][FONT=Arial][COLOR=black][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]Montana[/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][B][FONT=Arial][COLOR=black][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]and Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since she was nine.[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black] Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]grabbed his 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun.[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black] Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]first to catch a near point blank blast of buckshot from the 11-year-old's[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals.[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black] When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]before medical help could arrive.[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black] It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. That victim,[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]50-year-old David Burien, was not so lucky. He died from stab wounds to the[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]chest.[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black] Ever wonder why good stuff never makes[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][FONT=Arial][COLOR=black][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][B][FONT=Arial][COLOR=black][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial][B]NBC[/B][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black], CBS,[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][FONT=Arial][COLOR=black][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][B][FONT=Arial][COLOR=black][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial][B]PBS[/B][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black],[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][FONT=Arial][COLOR=black][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][B][FONT=Arial][COLOR=black][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial][B]MSNBC[/B][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black], CNN, or[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]ABC news....[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black] Now that is Gun Control![/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][/QUOTE]

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[quote=SkinDogg;398647]Not picking sides here, but for every story like this is a story of some kid who accidently killed a buddy while playing with dad's gun. Or, some kid who took dad's gun to school...

And why was an 11-year old left home alone?[/quote]

yup.

I'm very pro-gun, but very pro-gun control. I don't understand why people have to take a test in order to drive a car, but anyone over a certain age with no felonies can buy a handgun. Policies banning certain setups are definitely the wrong approach in my opinion. Better screening for intelligence and mental health is the way to go, with the cost getting passed on to the people purchasing...

again just my opinion...

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[quote=Monksdown;398308]Quoting:

[B][B][FONT=Arial][SIZE=4][COLOR=black][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]Preteen vs. illegal alien Home Invaders[/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/B]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=4][COLOR=black][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]Butte[/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=4][COLOR=black][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial], Montana[/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=4][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]November 5, 200[/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=4][COLOR=navy][COLOR=navy]7[/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/B]
[B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26[/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11 year old[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home.[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black] It seems the two crooks never learned two things: they were in [/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][FONT=Arial][COLOR=black][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]Montana[/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]and Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since she was nine.[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black] Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]grabbed his 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun.[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black] Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]first to catch a near point blank blast of buckshot from the 11-year-old's[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals.[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black] When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]before medical help could arrive.[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black] It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. That victim,[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]50-year-old David Burien, was not so lucky. He died from stab wounds to the[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]chest.[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black] Ever wonder why good stuff never makes[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][FONT=Arial][COLOR=black][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial][B]NBC[/B][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black], CBS,[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][FONT=Arial][COLOR=black][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial][B]PBS[/B][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black],[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][FONT=Arial][COLOR=black][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial][B]MSNBC[/B][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black], CNN, or[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]ABC news....[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][B][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=black][COLOR=black] Now that is Gun Control![/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][/quote]

those two dudes got what they deserved. i would have done the same thing, except after i shot them down i would have kicked him in his face.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[quote=skinsfan69;398670]those two dudes got what they deserved. i would have done the same thing, except after i shot them down i would have kicked him in his face.[/quote]

Except that [URL="http://www.redskinswarpath.com/locker-room/21645-ast-after-sean-taylor-gun-2.html#post398645"]it never happened[/URL].

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[quote=onlydarksets;398672]Except that [URL="http://www.redskinswarpath.com/locker-room/21645-ast-after-sean-taylor-gun-2.html#post398645"]it never happened[/URL].[/quote]

I guess people just skip over posts.

Sounded a little too good to be true, for sure.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets;398645]Seriously, folks - it's called Snopes, and, unlike guns, it saves lives:
[URL="http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/homeinvasion.asp"]Urban Legends Reference Pages: Home Invasion Thwarted by 11-Year-Old Girl[/URL][/QUOTE]

So one false story that gets passed around proves...?

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

I still don't quite understand the logic, "To combat the threat of guns, we need to give everyone guns." It's akin to the U.S. arguing in the Cold War, "to combat the threat of nuclear arms, we need to proliferate nukes." Gun-advocates view gun-control proponents as naive, but I'm not sure that people who believe 99% of people can handle guns are themselves entirely in touch with reality.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

Both sides (I'm neither for nor against guns btw) seem to only consider their perspective when arguing their case. I guess that's logical, but there are countless stories as to why someone wants or does not want to own a gun. If you have a specific and personal reason for owning a gun then you should be able to own one. If guns make you uncomfortable then don't have one in your home. Right now the laws seem pretty fair for both sides.

If I had one opinion on the matter it would be guns should be used for home defense and recreation not to be carried around in public places.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[quote=mheisig;398675]So one false story that gets passed around proves...?[/quote]

That it's a false story. The guns comment is (quite obviously) commentary.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

F that someone comes into my house at night they are getting blasted. Even if they kill me they're going down with me. I didn't need ST to die to know that.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;398680]I still don't quite understand the logic, "To combat the threat of guns, we need to give everyone guns." [/quote]


that's because that statement represents 2 extreme points of view.

#1 that guns themselves pose a threat to anything

#2 that everyone should have them.

Neither of these statements is remotely accurate, so if you put them together obviously it's going to sound absurd... there is no logic to that statement, and I find it difficult to believe anyone is arguing that.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

Moving this to the parking lot since it's basically an off topic thread now

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[QUOTE=chrisl4064;398278]I have a gun, carry, and work with them. I think to get a gun out of fear just to have is stupid, however if you take the time to use it and educate yourself it can be a very useful tool in a terrible situation. You would be suprised to see how many people have thier own weapons turned on them, know what you are doing....[/QUOTE]

Good post, I agree.
I have a .45 next to bed, but I keep a bullet out of the chamber just to avoid accidental firings.
I firmly think all honest people should have a gun, if intruders were shot and killed every time they broke into a house, I guarantee the amount of break ins would decrease by a substantial margin. You should always protect yourself and your family, but learn / educate yourself on how to use it, and of course, go to a gun range and learn how to shoot it too. No point in having it if you're just going to shoot the wall. Practice makes perfect.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

I'm not really an advocate for guns personally and unless I end up being some Dr. Making XXX,XXX+ amounts of money, I hope I'll never have a need for one. But I believe that when you live in a nice neighborhood or a well known person making a hell of a lot of money. You NEED a gun.

... Or a REALLY big bodyguard.

In the case of athletes I do advocate them carrying guns.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[quote=jsarno;398794]Good post, I agree.
I have a .45 next to bed, but I keep a bullet out of the chamber just to avoid accidental firings.
I firmly think all honest people should have a gun, if intruders were shot and killed every time they broke into a house, I guarantee the amount of break ins would decrease by a substantial margin. You should always protect yourself and your family, but learn / educate yourself on how to use it, and of course, go to a gun range and learn how to shoot it too. No point in having it if you're just going to shoot the wall. Practice makes perfect.[/quote]

What if it's not an intruder? What if it's your son trying to get back into the house after sneaking out after curfew? The risk of being wrong just isn't worth it. Better ten guilty go free than one innocent die.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets;399369]What if it's not an intruder? What if it's your son trying to get back into the house after sneaking out after curfew? The risk of being wrong just isn't worth it. Better ten guilty go free than one innocent die.[/QUOTE]

First rule of firearms safety: Be sure of your target.

2. All guns are always loaded.

3. Never let your muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.

4. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you have made a conscious decision to fire.

Learn and live by those four rules and above isn't a problem.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[quote=mheisig;399374]First rule of firearms safety: Be sure of your target.

2. All guns are always loaded.

3. Never let your muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.

4. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you have made a conscious decision to fire.

Learn and live by those four rules and above isn't a problem.[/quote]

Sounds great. I'd love to see that in action in the dark by someone who has never fired their gun at a human before. I'm sure it will work out fine.

Look, I'm not saying that nobody should have guns. I'm just saying that going to the firing range a few times a month and memorizing a checklist can't possibly prepare the average person for the stress of this type of situation. It's unrealistic to think that adrenaline and fear are going to allow you to get it right 100% of the time.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[quote=onlydarksets;399378]Sounds great. I'd love to see that in action in the dark by someone who has never fired their gun at a human before. I'm sure it will work out fine.

Look, I'm not saying that nobody should have guns. I'm just saying that going to the firing range a few times a month and memorizing a checklist can't possibly prepare the average person for the stress of this type of situation. It's unrealistic to think that adrenaline and fear are going to allow you to get it right 100% of the time.[/quote]

I'm prone to agree with that. I mean if its dark and its someone you can't see, and you've got fight or flight kicking in. I mean, I think instincts are going to take over. I think only experienced people with guns or cops could keep their fight or flight rush under control and make a rational decision in such a tense situation. Knowing me, if someone came in who I wasn't expecting I'd just mess them up and not think twice. Hence, why I'll never own a gun. I'll stick with an alarm system. Maybe a tazer. lol

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets;399378][B]Sounds great. I'd love to see that in action in the dark by someone who has never fired their gun at a human before. I'm sure it will work out fine.[/B]

Look, I'm not saying that nobody should have guns. I'm just saying that going to the firing range a few times a month and memorizing a checklist can't possibly prepare the average person for the stress of this type of situation. It's unrealistic to think that adrenaline and fear are going to allow you to get it right 100% of the time.[/QUOTE]

It works all the time with people who seek out the necessary training. I fail to see what's so hard to grasp about that for most people.

An old adage in the military and law enforcement goes, "You will fight like you train."

So, yes, run out to the local gun show, buy yourself "a nine," toss it in the nightstand having barely familiarized yourself with it and yeah, expect disastrous results.

Being proficient with a firearm, and by proficient I mean reasonably accurate, reasonably fast, with the ability to reload and be familiar enough to operate under stress and pressure and in low light environments, is really is not as complicated as it sounds. People who are ignorant about guns generally seem to assume it's an incredibly complex process better left to "professionals."

People roaming down the interstate yacking on the cellphone while propelling a 4,000+ pound vehicle at speeds in excess of 70mph is what scares the crap out of me. Driving a car is equally, if not more dangerous and complicated than operating a firearm. How many people can skillfully control a skidding or sliding vehicle? How many know how to handle a vehicle at high speeds, in slides, or over slippery surfaces? Very few, but I don't hear anyone complaining about that. What is it about guns that really gets people going?

I'm not saying, and have never said, that every last walking moron should be armed to the teeth. Training is necessary, but it's not that unreasonable.

People routinely spend $80,000+ for a four or more year college education that purportedly prepares them for the real world, not to mention graduate school. We'll spend $30,000 on a car and pay attention to all the safety features. We'll have our 16 year old kids take drivers ed and log the necessary driving training time before getting a license.

Why is it when it comes to the protection and safety of yourself and your family from evil people, do we just take it for granted, leave it to chance, or just assume we'll figure it out when we have to?

$1,000 will get you a perfectly decent handgun and 2-3 days of training on how to operate it safely and use it in a tactical or home-defense environment. $2,000 will get you an excellent handgun and 5 days of training from former and current military and law enforcement professionals who actually HAVE had to shoot at a person before. Your "average Joe" spends twice that on a TV so he can sit back and eat Cheetos and be entertained every night. You wouldn't spend the same to properly protect yourself and your family?

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[quote=mheisig;399386]It works all the time with people who seek out the necessary training. I fail to see what's so hard to grasp about that for most people.

An old adage in the military and law enforcement goes, "You will fight like you train."

So, yes, run out to the local gun show, buy yourself "a nine," toss it in the nightstand having barely familiarized yourself with it and yeah, expect disastrous results.

Being proficient with a firearm, and by proficient I mean reasonably accurate, reasonably fast, with the ability to reload and be familiar enough to operate under stress and pressure and in low light environments, is really is not as complicated as it sounds. People who are ignorant about guns generally seem to assume it's an incredibly complex process better left to "professionals."

People roaming down the interstate yacking on the cellphone while propelling a 4,000+ pound vehicle at speeds in excess of 70mph is what scares the crap out of me. Driving a car is equally, if not more dangerous and complicated and operating a firearm. How many people can skillfully control a skidding or sliding vehicle? How many know how to handle a vehicle at high speeds, in slides, or over slippery surfaces? Very few, but I don't hear anyone complaining about that. What is it about guns that really gets people going?

I'm not saying, and have never said, that every last walking moron should be armed to the teeth. Training is necessary, but it's not that unreasonable.

People routinely spend $80,000+ for a four or more year college education that purportedly prepares them for the real world, not to mention graduate school. We'll spend $30,000 on a car and pay attention to all the safety features. We'll have our 16 year old kids take drivers ed and log the necessary driving training time before getting a license.

Why is it when it comes to the protection and safety of yourself and your family from evil people, do we just take it for granted, leave it to chance, or just assume we'll figure it out when we have to?

$1,000 will get you a perfectly decent handgun and 2-3 days of training on how to operate it safely and use it in a tactical or home-defense environment. Your "average Joe" spends three times that on a TV.[/quote]



And there are plenty of classes available for little to no money, that are actually very very informative. Most are taught by ex or current law enforcement and military personell. I was a little embarrassed when I took my first home defense class at Shooter's Paradise in Woodbridge, but I learned so much I made my wife go, and I've taken other classes since. I wish the classes and an extensive screening process were mandatory as part of your first firearm purchase.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[quote=mheisig;399386]It works all the time with people who seek out the necessary training. I fail to see what's so hard to grasp about that for most people.

An old adage in the military and law enforcement goes, "You will fight like you train."

So, yes, run out to the local gun show, buy yourself "a nine," toss it in the nightstand having barely familiarized yourself with it and yeah, expect disastrous results.

Being proficient with a firearm, and by proficient I mean reasonably accurate, reasonably fast, with the ability to reload and be familiar enough to operate under stress and pressure and in low light environments, is really is not as complicated as it sounds. People who are ignorant about guns generally seem to assume it's an incredibly complex process better left to "professionals."[/quote]

And I fail to see what is so hard to grasp about "unintended consequences". First, I disagree about how far training can take you. Comparing a gun owner to a police officer is a far stretch. Second, even if it was enough, you assume way too much about what the average person who has a gun will do to educate and train themselves.

The unintended consequences outweigh the benefits in my house. God bless America, because you are free to choose differently. I believe that gun control needs to be smarter, not harder, but the current state just isn't cutting it.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[QUOTE=canthetuna;399390]And there are plenty of classes available for little to no money, that are actually very very informative. Most are taught by ex or current law enforcement and military personell. I was a little embarrassed when I took my first home defense class at Shooter's Paradise in Woodbridge, but I learned so much I made my wife go, and I've taken other classes since. I wish the classes and an extensive screening process were mandatory as part of your first firearm purchase.[/QUOTE]

Very true - many of the basic classes are free or cost what amounts to pocket change.

I try to look at the whole situation from every possible angle, but I simply fail to see why people are so averse to the issue. There are many objection, most of which you hear over and over, and I simply don't think anyone of them hold much water.

I'm not going to try to force anyone to do anything they don't want. If someone just wants to say "Listen, I just don't want to own a gun, that's all there is to it," I can live with that. Personal choices.

It does bother me that there is apparently a substantial amount of ignorance and irrational fear, and I do my best to educate those who are willing to listen. I've trained several people to shoot, two women in particular who were extremely opposed to guns of any sort. They both enjoyed the initial training and now shoot regularly simply because they enjoy it as a hobby.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets;399394]And I fail to see what is so hard to grasp about "unintended consequences". First, I disagree about how far training can take you. Comparing a gun owner to a police officer is a far stretch. Second, even if it was enough, you assume way too much about what the average person who has a gun will do to educate and train themselves.

The unintended consequences outweigh the benefits in my house. God bless America, because you are free to choose differently. I believe that gun control needs to be smarter, not harder, but the current state just isn't cutting it.[/QUOTE]

Like I said, I certainly respect your decision and none of this is an attempt to argue anyone into doing something they don't want to do.

I agree it's possible (not necessary) that there are unintended consequences to owning a firearm.

Can you tell me how that differs substantially from the possible unintended consequences of driving? Or flying? Or having cleaning fluids in a house full of kids? Or having a gas stove? Or having matches? Or walking down the street? You've got the risk of danger and harm to you and your loved ones all around you, all day long, why is a gun so much different?

With respect to comparing a police officer and a gunowner, I [B]staunchly[/B] disagree, and feel I'm pretty well qualified to speak on the subject having been a civilian gun owner and a police officer at one time.

As discomforting as this is to many of you, the VAST majority of police officers are absolutely NOT expert marksmen or even close. They are moderately competent, some far worse. I had 80 hours of firearms training in the police academy, which is about 3-5 times what the state required minimum is in most states. In other words I got 80 hours, and most departments get a LOT less. Of that 80 hours, 1/3 was probably spent milling around wasting time and waiting for your turn to shoot.

I can [B]unequivocally[/B] state, after being trained in a highly respected law enforcement academy, and having seen hundreds of other officers shoot, that I know more civilians who are better shots than police officers.

The perception that officers have some incredible level of skill with firearms is preposterous and likely perpetuated by ignorant people or the departments themselves.

A 5-day course at a place like Gunsite or Blackwater or any of a dozen schools throughout the country will leave your "average Joe" as prepared or better prepared than the vast majority of officers I encountered, and I'd stake my reputation and a large sum of cash on that.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets;399369]What if it's not an intruder? What if it's your son trying to get back into the house after sneaking out after curfew? The risk of being wrong just isn't worth it. Better ten guilty go free than one innocent die.[/QUOTE]

Well, it seems like there is a common argument about "the innocent" bystander.
1- you preach gun safety to your kids. They NEED to understand the importance of guns and their role.
2- no one randomly shoots in the dark when they see a shadow, if they do, they should not have a gun...if you think you would, you should not own a gun because you're not fit to have one. A confirmation is needed first. When my wife goes to the bathroom in the middle of the night, I'm not ready to shoot her on the way back to the bedroom. That's common sense, especially if you see her silohette. You should also know the size of your kids, and if you have kids, then you should be a ton more reluctant to pull the trigger until you KNOW it's an intruder. I live in an area with extremely loose gun laws, and no one shoots their wife or kid thinking they are an intruder...it never happens. This is just a comment based on fear of the unknown. The kids out here are taught about gun safety and they are familiar with guns...guess what...there are never any issues. Education is always the key. Fear should never be used in making decision, and that includes gun laws / excuses as to why not to have guns.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[quote=jsarno;399435]
2- no one randomly shoots in the dark when they see a shadow. A confirmation is needed first.[/quote]

This would fall under the rule, "know your target and what is beyond it"

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[QUOTE=canthetuna;399436]This would fall under the rule, "know your target and what is beyond it"[/QUOTE]

I absolutely agree.

I edited my previous comment because there are those idiots out there.
But would you jump behind the wheel of a car when you're 12, not knowing how to drive and expect to have spectacular results? Just like anything you do in your life, it takes practice and understanding.

I've been a gun owner for well over a decade. I am an excellent shot. The gun has never gone off on it's own, nor has it been pulled against someone that it wasn't intended to pull on. You need to respect the gun...if you don't, then trouble happens.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

jsarno, why i admire you for your belief in your second amendment rights, im with darksets. guns are made for one reason, and one reason only. killing. the old wild wild west mentality amuses me. the constitution needs amended so people that need guns have them( military, police) and those who don't, have alot harder access to them. and enforcing the gun laws we have on the books right now. no need for new laws, just use the existing ones

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[quote=mheisig;399407]Like I said, I certainly respect your decision and none of this is an attempt to argue anyone into doing something they don't want to do.[/quote]
Likewise, thanks.

[quote=mheisig;399407] I agree it's possible (not necessary) that there are unintended consequences to owning a firearm.[/quote]
Laws affect all people, so you can't look at a specific situation to prove the rule. Across the entire population, there is a 100% certainty that there are unintended consequences to owning a firearm.


[quote=mheisig;399407]Can you tell me how that differs substantially from the possible unintended consequences of driving? Or flying? Or having cleaning fluids in a house full of kids? Or having a gas stove? Or having matches? Or walking down the street? You've got the risk of danger and harm to you and your loved ones all around you, all day long, why is a gun so much different?[/quote]
That's a strawman argument, but it seems to come up often, so allow me to debunk it. The natural use of any of those other items is non-injurious [U]to anyone[/U]. The natural use of a gun (and by use I mean firing it) is injurious.

[quote=mheisig;399407] With respect to comparing a police officer and a gunowner, I [B]staunchly[/B] disagree, and feel I'm pretty well qualified to speak on the subject having been a civilian gun owner and a police officer at one time.

As discomforting as this is to many of you, the VAST majority of police officers are absolutely NOT expert marksmen or even close. They are moderately competent, some far worse. I had 80 hours of firearms training in the police academy, which is about 3-5 times what the state required minimum is in most states. In other words I got 80 hours, and most departments get a LOT less. Of that 80 hours, 1/3 was probably spent milling around wasting time and waiting for your turn to shoot.

I can [B]unequivocally[/B] state, after being trained in a highly respected law enforcement academy, and having seen hundreds of other officers shoot, that I know more civilians who are better shots than police officers.

The perception that officers have some incredible level of skill with firearms is preposterous and likely perpetuated by ignorant people or the departments themselves.

A 5-day course at a place like Gunsite or Blackwater or any of a dozen schools throughout the country will leave your "average Joe" as prepared or better prepared than the vast majority of officers I encountered, and I'd stake my reputation and a large sum of cash on that.[/quote]

First, I still don't agree that "training taking over" is going to get you through this situation 100% of the time [U]in the manner you intended[/U] (I found [URL="http://www.policeone.com/writers/columnists/SteveWalton/articles/122284/"]this interesting article[/URL] that appears to support [U]neither[/U] of our positions, or both - I can't tell). The risks just aren't worth it in my house.

Second, the flaw with the "gun safety by training" arguments in this thread is that they focus on the top 10-20% (and I am being [U]extremely[/U] generous with that guestimate) of the gun-owning population. Given the amount of training that you have gone through and your background, I have no reason to doubt that you are a better marksman than the average police officer. I would venture to guess that the gun-owners with which you associate are like-minded in their view of the importance of vigorous training.

However, this argument ignores the fact that the vast majority of people who own guns do not take the time to get the training that you describe. If this training were made mandatory, then I [U]might[/U] be a [U]little[/U] more comfortable with the idea.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets;399531]Likewise, thanks.


Laws affect all people, so you can't look at a specific situation to prove the rule. Across the entire population, there is a 100% certainty that there are unintended consequences to owning a firearm.



That's a strawman argument, but it seems to come up often, so allow me to debunk it. The natural use of any of those other items is non-injurious [U]to anyone[/U]. The natural use of a gun (and by use I mean firing it) is injurious.



First, I still don't agree that "training taking over" is going to get you through this situation 100% of the time [U]in the manner you intended[/U] (I found [URL="http://www.policeone.com/writers/columnists/SteveWalton/articles/122284/"]this interesting article[/URL] that appears to support [U]neither[/U] of our positions, or both - I can't tell). The risks just aren't worth it in my house.

Second, the flaw with the "gun safety by training" arguments in this thread is that they focus on the top 10-20% (and I am being [U]extremely[/U] generous with that guestimate) of the gun-owning population. Given the amount of training that you have gone through and your background, I have no reason to doubt that you are a better marksman than the average police officer. I would venture to guess that the gun-owners with which you associate are like-minded in their view of the importance of vigorous training.

However, this argument ignores the fact that the vast majority of people who own guns do not take the time to get the training that you describe. If this training were made mandatory, then I [U]might[/U] be a [U]little[/U] more comfortable with the idea.[/QUOTE]

I think this discussion boils down to a few basic philosophies.

1) Should the government be restricting access to something (anything really) that CAN be used irresponsibliy even though with proper training it WOULD be used properly.
2) It sounds cliche but the old saying that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is pretty central to the argument here.

I think a lot of people would rather the government remove the ability of irresponisble people causing harm to others at the expense of the responsible. Others would rather not. I guess it is a fundamental difference of opinion. Neither side is probably right or wrong totally.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets;399531]Laws affect all people, so you can't look at a specific situation to prove the rule. Across the entire population, there is a 100% certainty that there are unintended consequences to owning a firearm.
[/QUOTE]

I wasn't really speaking about any of this with respect to nationwide laws, but with respect to an individual's personal choices. If we are discussing legislation, then we also can't look at the specific situation of an untrained person accidentally shooting their own son any more than we can look at a trained individual accurately shooting a intruder.

[QUOTE]
That's a strawman argument, but it seems to come up often, so allow me to debunk it. The natural use of any of those other items is non-injurious [U]to anyone[/U]. The natural use of a gun (and by use I mean firing it) is injurious.
[/QUOTE]

Good point about the natural use of a firearm. I fail to see how that debunks anything however. That natural purpose IS injurious, I'd argue deadly (if it functions as it should.) What's wrong with that? If an intruder breaks into my home with the intent of harming my family, you are absolutely correct that I will not hesitate to end their life.

Going with your argument, if the natural use of a car is transportation, will it make you feel better that its natural use isn't injurious when some idiot on the road loses control and hits you and your family head-on? Will you say, "Well, at least it wasn't intended for injury, that makes me feel better."

The intended use of a firearm is injury or death, just as it should be. Employed properly, this results in the protection of the innocent against the evil. Employed negligently it can result in accidental injury. Employed maliciously it can cause intentional injury or death of the innocent perpetrated by the evil.

The intended purpose of a car is transportation. Employed properly it results in peaceful transportation of people and cargo from point A to point B. Employed negligently it can result in accidental death or injury. Employed maliciously it can cause the same injurious or deadly consequences as a firearm.

What's the difference?

[QUOTE]
First, I still don't agree that "training taking over" is going to get you through this situation 100% of the time [U]in the manner you intended[/U] (I found [URL="http://www.policeone.com/writers/columnists/SteveWalton/articles/122284/"]this interesting article[/URL] that appears to support [U]neither[/U] of our positions, or both - I can't tell). The risks just aren't worth it in my house.
[/QUOTE]

I, nor anyone I know of like mind, would say it's 100%. Highly trained marksmen sometimes end up on the wrong end of things. Nothing is a guarantee, and anyone arguing that it is is being disingenuous.

A method doesn't have to be 100% to be effective or reasonable. I am perfectly willing to accept that I may end up on the wrong end of a gunfight. I am, however, confident enough in my training and experience to accept the risks.

If you find a 100% effective and safe method of self-defense, let me know and we'll partner up to sell it and make billions.


[QUOTE]
Second, the flaw with the "gun safety by training" arguments in this thread is that they focus on the top 10-20% (and I am being [U]extremely[/U] generous with that guestimate) of the gun-owning population. Given the amount of training that you have gone through and your background, I have no reason to doubt that you are a better marksman than the average police officer. I would venture to guess that the gun-owners with which you associate are like-minded in their view of the importance of vigorous training.

However, this argument ignores the fact that the vast majority of people who own guns do not take the time to get the training that you describe. If this training were made mandatory, then I [U]might[/U] be a [U]little[/U] more comfortable with the idea.[/QUOTE]

I can't even make an overall guess as to the training level of most gun owners. I'm sure there are plenty who are completely unqualified to own or operate a firearm. My personal belief is that the answer is education, not blind fear and mass banning.

I still think you have something of an exaggerated perspective on firearms training. If I had to venture a guess, I would say your experience with firearms has slight or nonexistent (and that's not an insult, just an observation). I've been a novice, I've known little to nothing about guns. I've also received excellent training and progressed. I've seen and trained others who have gone from barely knowing which end to point, to being extremely competent and skilled operators. It is NOT that difficult. Let me repeat myself, it is NOT that difficult. I am nothing special - I am extremely average. I have taken it upon myself to understand firearms and learn to operate them safely and effectively. In my mind that does NOT move me into some elite category.

As I mentioned before, the notion that police officers have some level of training and expertise with respect to firearms that the average civilian could never attain is preposterous. Again, as I said, any person with a modicum of intelligence and common sense can take a few thousand dollars, 5 days of their time, and be as well trained or better trained than a police officer. That I am 100% confident about, because I've seen it done time and time again without fail.

Do I have high standards with respect to a person's seriousness about handling firearm? Your damn right. I also have high standards about how someone should educate themselves in general, about keeping a certain level of physical fitness, about being rational and responsible as well.

To answer what dmek25 said also, I think what we're getting back to here (finally!) is what amount to a personal choice of ethics. I'll say right up front that the chances of changing anyone's ethic on a internet message board is slim to none.

That being said, I personally feel that the bar should be raised and people expected to reach for it as opposed to enacting massive, sweeping laws to remove the responsibility from the citizen. The responsibility is YOURS, not anyone else's, and I don't think it should be any different. I will continue to train and make myself better in every facet of life which I can control, and I expect the same of everyone else.

It almost literally brings a tear to my eye to see so much of this country sit back, fold their hands, and expect someone else (i.e. the government) take care of their problems. I take some solace in the fact that I am not like that, that I'm not raisin my kids like that, and I know a good number of others who feel the same.

God forbid something like Katrina happen on a nationwide scale, or terrorism become a regular part of everyday American life, because I fear that many in his country have trained themselves to be sheep.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG;399557]I think this discussion boils down to a few basic philosophies.

1) Should the government be restricting access to something (anything really) that CAN be used irresponsibliy even though with proper training it WOULD be used properly.
2) It sounds cliche but the old saying that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is pretty central to the argument here.

I think a lot of people would rather the government remove the ability of irresponisble people causing harm to others at the expense of the responsible. Others would rather not. [B]I guess it is a fundamental difference of opinion. Neither side is probably right or wrong totally.[/B][/QUOTE]

You are absolutely right.

It is also probably so deeply ingrained from childhood depending on your upbringing, moral and ethical values and experiences that it's extremely difficult to change.

I guess the fundamental question is "Who's bears the responsibility of your personal protection?"

How you answer that pretty much answers the entire debate.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

Interesting that I don't see a huge difference in our assessment of the general population. We both agree that most people sit back and don't prepare themselves for contingencies. Our point of disagreement is whether that unprepared person should have a gun in their hand. I'll leave it at that, and just answer the question you asked.

[quote=mheisig;399562]Good point about the natural use of a firearm. I fail to see how that debunks anything however. That natural purpose IS injurious, I'd argue deadly (if it functions as it should.) What's wrong with that? If an intruder breaks into my home with the intent of harming my family, you are absolutely correct that I will not hesitate to end their life.

Going with your argument, if the natural use of a car is transportation, will it make you feel better that its natural use isn't injurious when some idiot on the road loses control and hits you and your family head-on? Will you say, "Well, at least it wasn't intended for injury, that makes me feel better."

The intended use of a firearm is injury or death, just as it should be. Employed properly, this results in the protection of the innocent against the evil. Employed negligently it can result in accidental injury. Employed maliciously it can cause intentional injury or death of the innocent perpetrated by the evil.

The intended purpose of a car is transportation. Employed properly it results in peaceful transportation of people and cargo from point A to point B. Employed negligently it can result in accidental death or injury. Employed maliciously it can cause the same injurious or deadly consequences as a firearm.

What's the difference?[/quote]
The problem is that you are conflating intended results and byproducts. Employed properly, the use of a firearm has the intended result of the death or injury of an individual. The byproduct is protection.

For you, that may not be a distinction that matters (I don't mean that as an insult - it's an implication of your argument). However, it does create these hyperbolic strawmen that distort the discussion.

As for cars, etc., the fact is you can use most items maliciously to kill or injure someone (Sean Taylor could use 1,432 items in the average living room, including the room itself). It doesn't really help the argument to throw the kitchen sink in there as an analogue to a gun.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[quote=mheisig;399564]You are absolutely right.

It is also probably so deeply ingrained from childhood depending on your upbringing, moral and ethical values and experiences that it's extremely difficult to change.

I guess the fundamental question is "Who's bears the responsibility of your personal protection?"

How you answer that pretty much answers the entire debate.[/quote]

I think FRPLG's and your comments are correct. We'll start another thread for that. Maybe with a poll ;)

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;399501]jsarno, why i admire you for your belief in your second amendment rights, im with darksets. guns are made for one reason, and one reason only. killing. the old wild wild west mentality amuses me. the constitution needs amended so people that need guns have them( military, police) and those who don't, have alot harder access to them. and enforcing the gun laws we have on the books right now. no need for new laws, just use the existing ones[/QUOTE]

Well, I do respect your opinion, but I slightly disagree as to why there are guns. There are people shot all the time that don't die, therefore they are not intended solely for killing people. In fact, many thefts / break ins have been prevented just because a gun was present.
I understand there are ramifications for the use of guns, but I also understand that nothing protects you better.

I do firmly agree with the 2nd amendment, however, if the country could guarentee that gun laws would keep guns out of the hands of evil people, then I'd listen more intently and reserve the right to change my mind. We all know that will never happen, so all gun laws do is hurt the honest people, which makes them pretty damn useless. This is something that pro gun law people miss regularly. All gun laws will do is cause more harm because people won't be able to protect themselves, and the evil people will have easy access to them. For that fact alone, the argument about gun laws becomes moot.
There is a reason we as americans have the right to have fire arms, this country was founded on it. You don't go outside and take a sledge hammer to the foundation of your house do you? So why take one to what made America great?

I am curious as to what you meant by, "no need for new laws, just use the existing ones." The existing laws allow everyone to own a gun. So what laws are you speaking of?